The ulster rugby trial

[Hound]

The guys' version of events seems more plausible than the girl's. Even with all missing pieces.

I honestly don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion.

For me it comes down to that she was actually in charge. It ended when she decided it ended. Even if she was too numb to realise that, how can that be the lads' fault when they did nothing to threaten violence or force? One scream, in a situation where no violence has been threatened, stops it. And the witness saying it looked like a regular threesome even though she didnt see the act of consent, for me, supports that.

I definitely have doubt over Jackson, but not enough to convict, based on what I heard.

I'd be very quick in acquitting Olding, based on what  heard.

[Esmarelda]

The guys' version of events seems more plausible than the girl's. Even with all missing pieces.

I honestly don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion.

For me it comes down to that she was actually in charge. It ended when she decided it ended. Even if she was too numb to realise that, how can that be the lads' fault when they did nothing to threaten violence or force? One scream, in a situation where no violence has been threatened, stops it. And the witness saying it looked like a regular threesome even though she didnt see the act of consent, for me, supports that.

I definitely have doubt over Jackson, but not enough to convict, based on what I heard.

I'd be very quick in acquitting Olding, based on what  heard.

Because she said "No" to them, according to her.

[Taylor]

It is a total he said/she said scenario.

If the independent witness said it didnt look like rape is this what it will come down to?

I cant see any other scenario given the holes/inconsistencies in both sides

[Esmarelda]

It is a total he said/she said scenario.

If the independent witness said it didnt look like rape is this what it will come down to?

I cant see any other scenario given the holes/inconsistencies in both sides

She also said she saw thrusting and therefore intercourse, which Jackson denies. If we accept that the lads can't remember exactly what happened that night, I think we can also accept that Jackson knows whether he had intercourse or not. So there's another lie there, from one side or the other.

[AQMP]

It is a total he said/she said scenario.

If the independent witness said it didnt look like rape is this what it will come down to?

I cant see any other scenario given the holes/inconsistencies in both sides

She wasn't an independent witness, she was appearing for the prosecution (thought sometimes it didn't sound like it!). The question then is "what does rape look like?" - given that most women do not resist during rape/sexual assault (that from a defence witness)

[Taylor]

It is a total he said/she said scenario.

If the independent witness said it didnt look like rape is this what it will come down to?

I cant see any other scenario given the holes/inconsistencies in both sides

She wasn't an independent witness, she was appearing for the prosecution (thought sometimes it didn't sound like it!). The question then is "what does rape look like?" - given that most women do not resist during rape/sexual assault (that from a defence witness)

As someone said this could be the defence's plan.

To make everything look like a complete shambles/inaccuracies and that it comes down to 'what does rape look like' and does the witness say it was rape.

[Hound]

The guys' version of events seems more plausible than the girl's. Even with all missing pieces.

I honestly don't know how anyone can come to that conclusion.

For me it comes down to that she was actually in charge. It ended when she decided it ended. Even if she was too numb to realise that, how can that be the lads' fault when they did nothing to threaten violence or force? One scream, in a situation where no violence has been threatened, stops it. And the witness saying it looked like a regular threesome even though she didnt see the act of consent, for me, supports that.

I definitely have doubt over Jackson, but not enough to convict, based on what I heard.

I'd be very quick in acquitting Olding, based on what  heard.

Because she said "No" to them, according to her.

Agreed, although that's disputed. And without being there we can have no idea about tone and body language which as we all know is very important in deciphering what anyone is saying.

But a scream or walking out would have been the end of it. That for me is the key for the lads figuring about that consent had not been given. The frozen stuff I would 100% get if there was some violence or threat of violence, but that wasn't the case here. There was no worse consequence. She also knew there were other women in the house, she even saw one of them during it.

[Owen Brannigan]

It is obvious from the expectation of most posters that there will be agreement between observers of the same incidents that they have never been involved in investigations which require multiple witnesses to give evidence of their observations. 

It is very common for witnesses to give reports of the same incidents and provide what may be contradictory or unconnected versions of the same events.  In the same way, courts now do not rely as heavily on witness identification evidence because it is more often than not unreliable and contradictory.

Every witness will report a series of events from their own perspective and not with the overview that can only be provided by video.  Investigators recognise that this disparity in witness accounts and will probably be more alarmed when the same account is provided by all witnesses.  As members of the public we are conditioned by TV to expect that witness accounts should be synchronous and contradiction is an indication of guilt.

Therefore, witness accounts need to be backed up by forensic evidence before they alone can be relied upon to achieve a conviction. 

[nrico2006]

What is her view on how she communicated her non-consent?

I think, but could be wrong, that she told Jackson "to at least use a condom" and then when Olding came in she said "not him too". Maybe someone else could clarify.

So she didn't say no?  To the average joe (which the jury comprises of too) it looks more like she consented than she didn't.

[Link]

Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.

Yeah, there's very different tactics taken by prosecution and defence.

The girl was superbly prepared, she was ready for every question, knew exactly how to answer it, and had a stock answer for any time she did find herself in a muddle.

The lads are all over the place. Prosecution trying to set traps for Olding with hypothetical questions and he seems to be walking into all of them. He's answering questions the way the prosecution counsel wants him to.

What are these traps you speak off?

I've read through both the Cooney and Greaney twitter feeds and feel Olding has handled himself well and seems to be speaking truthfully with very little vague answers. Don't think Jackson was "all over the place" yesterday either.

[TyroneOnlooker]

Syferus, i've been reading this thread with interest over the course of the trial and most posters seem fairly rationale.

I think any person reading through the tweets we've all seen would be left at the same position - i.e. who the hell knows what actually happened here, every single persons' account is different and it's extremely difficult to try and establish who is telling the truth. I have yet to speak to one person who can say hand on heart they strongly believe either side.

I find it baffling how you can be so strongly adamant of guilt by the rugby players when you're getting the exact same info as the rest of joe public are getting.

What makes so much against them? Is it personal?

This place is a place for opinions, no-one's disputing that. But your continued tirades against other posters who are of a different opinion or merely question your opinion is quite strange.

Do you know something about this story the rest of us don't?

[Syferus]

It is a total he said/she said scenario.

If the independent witness said it didnt look like rape is this what it will come down to?

I cant see any other scenario given the holes/inconsistencies in both sides

It's really hard to tell the WUM accounts apart from the ones who are earnestly biased against the victim in this thread.

In the end does it even matter if it has the same chilling effect?

[Hound]

Clearly not a co-ordinated defence from the lads!

But with everyone drunk, nobody will remember things the same way.

I can't imagine they'll let McIlroy up there.

A coordinated defence would reak of conspiracy tbh, I'd imagine they don't have a clue what happened, really anyone in that house.

Yeah, there's very different tactics taken by prosecution and defence.

The girl was superbly prepared, she was ready for every question, knew exactly how to answer it, and had a stock answer for any time she did find herself in a muddle.

The lads are all over the place. Prosecution trying to set traps for Olding with hypothetical questions and he seems to be walking into all of them. He's answering questions the way the prosecution counsel wants him to.

What are these traps you speak off?

I've read through both the Cooney and Greaney twitter feeds and feel Olding has handled himself well and seems to be speaking truthfully with very little vague answers. Don't think Jackson was "all over the place" yesterday either.

By "all over the place" I meant giving differing stories. Jackson was very calm and composed yesterday by all accounts.

The traps comment was from the below piece. From Olding's perspective, I think he should have been elaborating each time, like the girl did for her answers to the questions she got from defence. But I'm a barstooler of course, and twitter is wholly unreliable and may only have summarised SO's responses.

From Cooney

Prosecution: "you were not interested in what the woman wanted to do or was prepared to do, she was just a vehicle for your own sexual desires that night."
Olding: "No ,I wouldn't put it that way"
Prosecution: "There comes a stage that night where you and Paddy jackson are in the bedroom with that woman. You are both prof rugby players, your work is physically demanding, using not only us skill and strength in an attempt to over power your opposition"
Olding: "yes"
P:What match is a 19 year old woman going to be for the pair of you?
SO:If she had resisted in any way I wouldn't have carried on
P:What match would that young woman have been for the pair of you if she didn't want to do what you were doing?
SO: I don't think she would have been a match.

[Hound]

Syferus, i've been reading this thread with interest over the course of the trial and most posters seem fairly rationale.

I think any person reading through the tweets we've all seen would be left at the same position - i.e. who the hell knows what actually happened here, every single persons' account is different and it's extremely difficult to try and establish who is telling the truth. I have yet to speak to one person who can say hand on heart they strongly believe either side.

I find it baffling how you can be so strongly adamant of guilt by the rugby players when you're getting the exact same info as the rest of joe public are getting.

What makes so much against them? Is it personal?

This place is a place for opinions, no-one's disputing that. But your continued tirades against other posters who are of a different opinion or merely question your opinion is quite strange.

Do you know something about this story the rest of us don't?

He knew about the bruises on the thighs before everyone else.
Albeit, they didn't actually exist.

[Syferus]

Syferus, i've been reading this thread with interest over the course of the trial and most posters seem fairly rationale.

I think any person reading through the tweets we've all seen would be left at the same position - i.e. who the hell knows what actually happened here, every single persons' account is different and it's extremely difficult to try and establish who is telling the truth. I have yet to speak to one person who can say hand on heart they strongly believe either side.

I find it baffling how you can be so strongly adamant of guilt by the rugby players when you're getting the exact same info as the rest of joe public are getting.

What makes so much against them? Is it personal?

This place is a place for opinions, no-one's disputing that. But your continued tirades against other posters who are of a different opinion or merely question your opinion is quite strange.

Do you know something about this story the rest of us don't?

He knew about the bruises on the thighs before everyone else.
Albeit, they didn't actually exist.

You're the fella who said with a straight face two hours ago that the reams of inconsistencies in the defendants' stories don't make a difference to the issue of consent. Up there with the most remarkable things said by anyone in this sorry thread. Look closer to home when trying to find problems next time.